(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Brooklyn-Residence-Inn-by-Marriott/i-2BFw8MW/0/1ea493f9/L/20180830%20DDRB%20Agenda%20Packet_Page_071-L.jpg)
Full article: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/residence-inn-by-marriotts-revised-plans-for-brooklyn/
Few Questions - perhaps covered previously:
Why can't the structural footprint abut the Magnolia Street sidewalk?
Does the site plan do away with a portion of Dora Street and instead turn it into yet another surface parking lot?
Why does Oak Street terminate as a cul-de-sac, instead of connecting with Forest Street?
Is Forest Street on a priority list for a Road Diet?
Until the people who Know What They Are Talking About show up:
1. Good question, seems that row of parking could be on the north side of the building, once it is shifted to front Magnolia.
2. Looks like another block of Dora is gone. Do they have to pay the City for it?
3. I think Oak is currently a cul-de-sac to limit the number and spacing of intersections with Forest. Looks like this plan reconnects it, as a right-in/right-out.
4. No idea on road diets.
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Brooklyn-Residence-Inn-by-Marriott/i-drvsQV4/0/2aebaff8/L/20180830%20DDRB%20Agenda%20Packet_Page_074-L.jpg)
1. I don't see why it can't. Utilities in Price Street aren't a factor in incorporating their off-street parking into Magnolia, allowing for an urban street edge facing Magnolia and Unity Plaza. Other than a sidewalk having to be rebuilt, with the parking lot design and fences, it appears like they're concerned about security.
2. Dora stays. See site plan image above.
3. FDOT converted Oak into a cul-de-sac when it widened Forest to 6 lanes. The proposed plan shows Oak being reopened.
4. Yes, Forest is one of the streets COJ is looking to diet. I'm not sure about funding or timeline to actually do it though.
Does Dora remain a public street, totally surrounded by the hotel property? I can't imagine the COJ wanting to maintain it, especially with what appear to be nice pavers, instead of asphalt.
Dora is northeast of the hotel property. I think the street being confused with Dora is a parking lot and drive they're planning to build in the middle of the block.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 31, 2018, 01:17:27 PM
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Brooklyn-Residence-Inn-by-Marriott/i-drvsQV4/0/2aebaff8/L/20180830%20DDRB%20Agenda%20Packet_Page_074-L.jpg)
1. I don't see why it can't. Utilities in Price Street aren't a factor in incorporating their off-street parking into Magnolia, allowing for an urban street edge facing Magnolia and Unity Plaza. Other than a sidewalk having to be rebuilt, with the parking lot design and fences, it appears like they're concerned about security.
2. Dora stays. See site plan image above.
3. FDOT converted Oak into a cul-de-sac when it widened Forest to 6 lanes. The proposed plan shows Oak being reopened.
4. Yes, Forest is one of the streets COJ is looking to diet. I'm not sure about funding or timeline to actually do it though.
I'd strongly encourage extending the building footprint to Magnolia Street. I'm not sure what the security concerns are, but if they have to do with cars driving into the building, well sturdy sidewalk barriers can be used.
As for the triangular surface lot created with Forest/Oak/Price, all I can say there is that hopefully, one day, if Forest Street ever gets "reduced," some creative plan can occur with that triangular lot, something engaging for pedestrians walking along Forest - perhaps even a food truck or two - a jump rope station (think Richmond's Upswing Stations) - whatever.
In reality, I don't find Forest Street to be all that pedestrian friendly at present. It needs a ton of work, and a Marriott site plan alone won't do much to correct the lack of pedestrian-orientation of this 6-lane boulevard lined with retention ponds (yes, I consider Unity Plaza a retention pond with a name).
Concerning the bit of property that hasn't been sold to Marriott, given its context after the hotel's construction, what likely uses remain for its landowner? Is it enough space for a parking garage? For anything mixed-use? Or more like a standalone diner or restaurant?
Approved today by DDRB. Not surprising. I feel like the time to stop this was the Conceptual approval, not the Final approval.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 31, 2018, 01:48:37 PM
Dora is northeast of the hotel property. I think the street being confused with Dora is a parking lot and drive they're planning to build in the middle of the block.
Well, if I could read a map ... I confused Price with Dora. One block of Price looks like it will be closed.
Yes, they proposed closing Price in the original concept and the utilities under Price has been the reason why the building can't be closer to Forest Street. If they left Price in place and added their parking to Price and Magnolia, the site plan would be fine.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 31, 2018, 09:28:34 PM
Yes, they proposed closing Price in the original concept and the utilities under Price has been the reason why the building can't be closer to Forest Street. If they left Price in place and added their parking to Price and Magnolia, the site plan would be fine.
So what in fact was approved in final form by the Board? Will Price stay open?
No. The board approved Price becoming a part of their surface parking lot.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 31, 2018, 10:19:46 PM
No. The board approved Price becoming a part of their surface parking lot.
Well, I guess nothing more to discuss on this. I don't understand the big deal on extending the building footprint to Magnolia. I've seen Marriotts abutting the sidewalk in cities all over the country - why this could not have been done here is utterly baffling to me. On the one hand, I want to excoriate both the City and DDRB for being weak-willed, on the other hand, perhaps the city needs to focus less on architectural details and more on the perception of safety in the core. The city seems riddled with violence, and more must be done to make downtown a daily draw for the region.
"
I don't understand the big deal on extending the building footprint to Magnolia.
"
And apparently the same with the owners and architects. Whatever value that could bring, they don't view it as being worth more than it's costs.
The big deal was the big picture of desiring Brooklyn to be walkable. In reality, it will be a suburban style spin of new urbanism with every project having a bit of surface parking. Accepting its autocentric fate, the hotel site design is completely fine.
This site plan is yet another example of prioritizing cars over pedestrians right in the zone of Jacksonville defined as downtown, and in eliminating Price, yet another assault on the urban grid-patterned streets in Brooklyn.
If a freaking review board can't defend an urban design principle as basic as direct sidewalk-access to the buildings and uses lining the street, then I question whether the Board should exist at all. Without conviction when a proposal challenges principle, then the Board has shown itself to be an empty bureaucratic shell taking up time and resources for development projects by developers who will have their way in the end anyway.
Downtown Jax is, for the most part, a chronic under-performer, and sadly, an embarrassment to its peer group. Its leaders look for expensive gimmicks, while foregoing a relatively cheap adherence to basic design principles and inexpensive features to make its citizens and tourists want to be and linger downtown. There are a handful of good projects happening currently that I believe will actually materialize, but I do believe many of the announcements will NOT materialize, and downtown Jax will continue to lag its peer group for at least another generation. I hope I'm wrong.
I also believe the city is relying on an incentives framework to get projects built and lots developed; however, on their own, these projects do very little to enhance the holistic branding and place-making needed in and around downtown to make it a go-to destination for the people of the region and the region's visitors. I'd probably prioritize the Emerald Necklace and upgrading a bunch of other assets of the core versus subsidizing housing for middle class downtown dwellers. Make the core a draw with well-maintained and well-designed features and amenities for ALL to enjoy, and the numbers will make sense for developer interests without taxpayer direct costs and opportunity costs.
I believe that Alex Coley is sincere in his desire to see Brooklyn become vibrant and walkable (eg advocating the Riverside Ave road diet)
So why can't he talk some sense into the DDRB?
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on September 01, 2018, 06:05:09 PM
I believe that Alex Coley is sincere in his desire to see Brooklyn become vibrant and walkable (eg advocating the Riverside Ave road diet)
So why can't he talk some sense into the DDRB?
Exactly my point - why spend all this money on a road diet, if things are getting built with designs and layouts that encourage mobility by car. There's no design incentive for people to be and stay on foot, and they'll continue to come to the area in their autos, and a road diet will end up frustrating the car cluster.
According to this article - http://www.jacksonville.com/news/20180831/road-diet-planned-for-jacksonvilles-soutel-drive-raises-concerns
QuoteMayor Lenny Curry's proposed budget also contains $2.2 million to undertake a road diet for a stretch of Park Street in the Brooklyn neighborhood, a plan that grew out of a study done by the Downtown Investment Authority about making streets in fast-developing Brooklyn more friendly for walking and bicycling.
That study, done last year, also examined road diets for Riverside Avenue and Forest Street where they run through the Brooklyn neighborhood, but Park Street between Forest Street and Stonewall Street is the only one that made the cut for funding so far.
Most of the article is about neighborhood opposition to a proposed road diet on Soutel Drive.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on September 01, 2018, 06:10:20 PM
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on September 01, 2018, 06:05:09 PM
I believe that Alex Coley is sincere in his desire to see Brooklyn become vibrant and walkable (eg advocating the Riverside Ave road diet)
So why can't he talk some sense into the DDRB?
Exactly my point - why spend all this money on a road diet, if things are getting built with designs and layouts that encourage mobility by car. There's no design incentive for people to be and stay on foot, and they'll continue to come to the area in their autos, and a road diet will end up frustrating the car cluster.
Builders/Developers are typically going to build to the minimum requirement to stretch their profits.
The simple fix: Redefine the minimum.
Not sure why this is so hard.
Case in point - Jax had a solid plan to put money back into the communities that were being developed, but that plan was axed, because, "TheY won'T BuiLd if We chargE thEm FeeS..." Meanwhile in SJC - Impact fees! Impact fees everywhere. And they were seeing record growth.
***sorry for speaking in meme, but it's been a long day.
From what I can tell, the minimum (in downtown) is fine. Applicants just ask for exceptions and variances.
Strange enough, the old site plan was better than final, in terms of the building being closer to Magnolia:
(https://residentnews.net/wp-content/themes/arts-culture/timthumb.php?src=https%3A%2F%2Fresidentnews.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F08%2FBrooklynMarriott_04.jpg&q=90&w=630&zc=1)
The big difference in the two is the final is more auto-friendly. Guest can drive through the parking lot without having to back up.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Brooklyn-Residence-Inn-by-Marriott/i-NZ2DPrH/0/fa65c07a/L/20180830%20DDRB%20Agenda%20Packet_Page_060-L.jpg)
https://residentnews.net/2018/08/02/proposed-hotel-in-brooklyn-faces-challenges-adjacent-property-hold-outs/
Well, reopening Oak is good. The rest is terrible. Brickbats to DDRB.
Quote from: Tacachale on September 02, 2018, 10:16:37 AM
Well, reopening Oak is good. The rest is terrible. Brickbats to DDRB.
Based on the conceptual rendering in the article, it appears as though there has never a plan placing the building right on the sidewalk lining Magnolia. It looks like part of the building footprint now extends to Oak Street at this point. I've not actually walked those streets in Brooklyn, but is there an expectation that Oak will be more of a pedestrian draw than Magnolia? Also, are the streets in Brooklyn actually urbanized? Meaning lined with sufficient sidewalks and curbsides, or is the city relying on developers to do this as redevelopment moves along?
From looking at Google aerials, it looks like the sidewalks are hit or miss. It's been awhile since I've driven through Brooklyn, but I suspect that even where there are sidewalks, they aren't in very good shape, having been in a neglected part of Jacksonville.
Also, when it comes to closing down a street and consolidating blocks, where else has the developer gone to get approval for this? Surely that's not a decision that simply sits with the DDRB - seems like imbalanced assignment of authority.
The entity wanting to permanently close a city street applies to the Public Works Dept. and pays a fee to the Tax Collector. Public Works then reviews the application, and circulates to other City and State agencies. If there is no objection, it goes to City Council, which must approve all street closures. https://library.municode.com/fl/jacksonville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITXXIPUWOUT_CH744STCORE_S744.104STCLAP
Quote from: Charles Hunter on September 02, 2018, 01:33:08 PM
The entity wanting to permanently close a city street applies to the Public Works Dept. and pays a fee to the Tax Collector. Public Works then reviews the application, and circulates to other City and State agencies. If there is no objection, it goes to City Council, which must approve all street closures. https://library.municode.com/fl/jacksonville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITXXIPUWOUT_CH744STCORE_S744.104STCLAP
Ah, so there is still a chance to contest some aspect of this plan?
Say what you want about the design, this will make a ton of money at this location.
They will. There are no Marriott affiliated hotels in DT. This, Courtyard and AC (if it happens) should do well with Marriott's loyal customer base.
Quote from: MusicMan on September 05, 2018, 12:05:07 PM
Say what you want about the design, this will make a ton of money at this location.
Yes, that's why the DDRB should have been able to stand its ground to get adherence to design standards it was created to uphold. Fundamental Commercial viability is there. We just need DDRB to be a steward for standards in order to achieve the kind of built environment we want in Brooklyn.
The DDRB had failed at its primary mission.
The renaissance in Brooklyn started with Fidelty moving there over 10 years ago.
I wonder why it took so long for a hotelier to move into this area?
Traveling south from the Times Union PAC all the way to Orange park, I am counting the hotels of good quality. ZERO.
Quote from: MusicMan on September 06, 2018, 09:13:12 AM
I wonder why it took so long for a hotelier to move into this area?
Since the Hyatt opened in 2000/2001, there has not been another hotel on the north side of the river in the urban core. I think the issue is more than about Brooklyn.
I dislike the Old Adams Mark - now Hyatt. I despise how it looks, how it interacts with the streets around it, that it's yet another box behemoth on the waterfront, that it lacks ground-floor retail, and that with its 900+ rooms it has arguably sucked a ton of life out of the potential for other hotel ventures throughout the core.
The new Hyatt Regency proposed for the triangular lot along Water Street will have 128 rooms and is a much bigger architectural adornment for downtown than the Adams Mark. Since the Adams Mark's opening in 2001, 6 or 7 smaller hotel products could have served as incredible infill opportunities all throughout the Northbank.
I'm pleased that Downtown finally has 1000+ hotel units in the pipeline for Downtown, and I'm even more pleased that they're all not in a single project. Small is beautiful.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on September 06, 2018, 04:58:43 PM
I dislike the Old Adams Mark - now Hyatt. I despise how it looks, how it interacts with the streets around it, that it's yet another box behemoth on the waterfront, that it lacks ground-floor retail, and that with its 900+ rooms it has arguably sucked a ton of life out of the potential for other hotel ventures throughout the core.
The new Hyatt Regency proposed for the triangular lot along Water Street will have 128 rooms and is a much bigger architectural adornment for downtown than the Adams Mark. Since the Adams Mark's opening in 2001, 6 or 7 smaller hotel products could have served as incredible infill opportunities all throughout the Northbank.
I'm pleased that Downtown finally has 1000+ hotel units in the pipeline for Downtown, and I'm even more pleased that they're all not in a single project. Small is beautiful.
The new Hyatt is a Hyatt Place, but your point is well taken.
The Adam's Mark and Berkman are why we have what is now the DDRB. While they could be better at their role IMO, they didn't exist before those awful buildings happened.
For context, all of Adam's Mark's properties (Well, most) were terrible buildings - suburban boxes in downtowns or waterfronts. The City lured them to town to win a super bowl. Jacksonville as a market really shouldn't have a single 1,000 room hotel. You only see those in Tier 1 cities (or at least, tier 1 convention cities e.g Orlando and Vegas).
In fairness to them, the Garage (old Daniel building) wasn't their fault. That awful thing was built in the 1980s. Adam's Mark developers received it and put lipstick on the pig to match the hotel.
But....it's here now.
JNYC, totally agree. I guess the silver lining is the Hyatt has served as a quasi-convention center for many smaller conferences, which might not have been possible otherwise. But really it would have benefited Jax to have developed many smaller hotels and eventually build up to the mega hotel, rather than the other way around. And of course as everyone would surely agree, ATROCIOUS building!
Bringing in the Adam's Mark essentially torpedoed the Bucky Clarkson plan to build a 22-story Marriott next to the Prime Osborn. One wonders how differently development in LaVilla in the 2000s might have turned out had the city incentivized that instead of the Adam's Mark. Not that it would have made placement of the convention center there much more logical.
I believe at one point the city considered putting $50 million in the BJP for the Prime Osborn. I imagine if that happened and Clarkson's hotel were built, we would not be having this convention center discussion right now. However, we'd also be screwed in efforts to return passenger rail.
Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on September 07, 2018, 10:19:48 AM
Bringing in the Adam's Mark essentially torpedoed the Bucky Clarkson plan to build a 22-story Marriott next to the Prime Osborn. One wonders how differently development in LaVilla in the 2000s might have turned out had the city incentivized that instead of the Adam's Mark. Not that it would have made placement of the convention center there much more logical.
Ohhh....yea. forgot about that one. I do wonder if an Expanded Prime Osborne with the Marriott would have been better. The Marriott would have been right-sized for the market, and Marriott certainly runs a better hotel than Adam's Mark ever dreamed of. In terms of synergy with the core, that wouldn't have happened though.
Quote from: Steve on September 07, 2018, 11:23:12 AM
Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on September 07, 2018, 10:19:48 AM
Bringing in the Adam's Mark essentially torpedoed the Bucky Clarkson plan to build a 22-story Marriott next to the Prime Osborn. One wonders how differently development in LaVilla in the 2000s might have turned out had the city incentivized that instead of the Adam's Mark. Not that it would have made placement of the convention center there much more logical.
Ohhh....yea. forgot about that one. I do wonder if an Expanded Prime Osborne with the Marriott would have been better. The Marriott would have been right-sized for the market, and Marriott certainly runs a better hotel than Adam's Mark ever dreamed of. In terms of synergy with the core, that wouldn't have happened though.
It wouldn't have. In addition to being logistically more poorly placed than the Adams Mark, the specific deal was a bad one for the city, which is why it was passed on. Too much in incentives for any impact it might have had.
The Adam's Mark also didn't necessarily torpedo Bucky Clarkson's plan. In fact, the city would probably have given him some incentives (just not what he was asking for). However, he made himself such a thorn in everyone's side that no one in the city wanted to deal with him again.
Let's not kid ourselves - the DDRB would approve every mistake of the past if presented with that same option today.
Quote from: Kerry on September 07, 2018, 12:00:29 PM
Let's not kid ourselves - the DDRB would approve every mistake of the past if presented with that same option today.
Yeah, it seems all the developer has to say is, "Well, I can take my development somewhere else ..." and the DDRB (and everyone else) rolls over and gives them whatever they want.
Quote from: Kerry on September 07, 2018, 12:00:29 PM
Let's not kid ourselves - the DDRB would approve every mistake of the past if presented with that same option today.
Meh....not sure about that. They have critiqued and required other changes. Should they have more of a spine? Absolutely. But it's not an absolute.